"Prior to the early 1900s," Arizona wasn't participating in any sort of voting process for its Electoral College delegates. It didn't become a state until 1916.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arizona bill proposes the legislature decide who wins electoral college votes, not voters.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
"Prior to the early 1900s," Arizona wasn't participating in any sort of voting process for its Electoral College delegates. It didn't become a state until 1916.
Can you quote the portion that
enables legislators to decide this?
Sorry - my memory was off a bit.
Arizona lawmaker proposes giving legislature, not voters, final say on presidential winner
Sen. Anthony Kern introduced a plan, known as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1014, that would give Arizona lawmakers the power to supersede the state's popular vote and decide on presidential electors.www.abc15.com
"SCR 1014 is rather straightforward and simple, less than a page in length, proposing that "the Legislature, and no other official, shall appoint presidential electors in accordance with the United States Constitution."
Yep, if you are a voter in Arizona this bill would mean your vote does not matter, your betters in the legislature will be making that decision for you. Hope you enjoyed democracy while you had it.
How much of a chance does this have of passing? It strikes me as the initiative of one fringe representative and not really supported by anyone else, even his own party.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is a good idea today. However, they are not taking away their say in the presidency. They get to vote for the legislators that would decide. I do support senators be appointed by the state legislatures like the constitution originally said.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I disagree that is a better system today. The only reason that people in most states can vote directly for president is because the legislature passed laws binding the electors to the popular vote. The idea of "fake" electors is just a misunderstanding of the process. There are always electors for each candidate, the ones that get to go and vote are the ones that the popular vote decides.
This guy is now looking for your car
so he can leave his "rebuttal" on it.
Maybe they'll leave me a Lucky Loonie
Faithless electors are an integral part of the original idea behind the Electoral College... or at least part of its pretense (ignoring all the stuff about the three-fifths compromise).
The Electoral College was originally intended to be a body of reasonable, wise people who could negotiate with each other to find a compromise that served the interest of the states they represented. Having state legislatures direct EC delegates to vote a particular way is a more recent innovation.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that the arrangement in Senator Kern's proposal - i.e. that the state legislature chooses pledged electors - was only the case for a narrow slice of history.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Article II, Section I:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Turns out I was wrong, at least if Wikipedia is accurate. There is no period where it was common for the state legislature to choose pledged electors.
Apparently, by the 1830s, most states chose their electors by popular vote, but the voters voted for the electors directly: the people chose the delegates who would represent their state in the Electoral College, not the presidential candidate directly.
With the advent of secret ballots in the 1880s, ballots switched from listing the electors to listing the candidates the electors would be pledged to support.
Unpledged elector - Wikipedia
I know that US election procedures are weird, so there may have been some oddball state doing their own thing. Does anyone have any actual examples of a state ever doing what Sen. Kerns is suggesting... i.e. having a state legislature choose pledged electors?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Miving away from that enhanced American Democracy. Wanting the "original intent" is letting the dead govern us (which was most definitely not the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution) amd trying to keep us stuck in a world that no omger exists.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Why? The parties would vote for themselves and that's not good.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Notice the idea if the winner of presidential election becoming president while the runner up becomes vice president is something you just don't hear the original intenters wanting?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Because the senate was originally supposed to be supporting the state's interests and the house the people's interests. What is the purpose of the senate now? Both houses are beholden to the people so why have them both? This was set up to be able to compromise between the states interests and the individual citizens interests.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).Turns out I was wrong, at least if Wikipedia is accurate. There is no period where it was common for the state legislature to choose pledged electors.
Apparently, by the 1830s, most states chose their electors by popular vote, but the voters voted for the electors directly: the people chose the delegates who would represent their state in the Electoral College, not the presidential candidate directly.
With the advent of secret ballots in the 1880s, ballots switched from listing the electors to listing the candidates the electors would be pledged to support.
Unpledged elector - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I know that US election procedures are weird, so there may have been some oddball state doing their own thing. Does anyone have any actual examples of a state ever doing what Sen. Kerns is suggesting... i.e. having a state legislature choose pledged electors?
In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,605 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
April 10, 2018 - "US Judge: Colorado Electors Must Follow Popular Vote"
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet
The current statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes are not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one
Now, Each political party in each state nominates a slate of candidates for the position of presidential elector. This is most commonly done at the party’s congressional-district conventions and the party’s state convention during the summer or early fall. It is sometimes done in a primary.
Typically, each political party chair certifies to the state’s chief election official the names of the party’s candidate for President and Vice President and the names of the party’s candidates for presidential elector.
Under the “short presidential ballot” (now used in all states), the names of the party’s nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot.
When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector.
The RNC and Trump wanted to just declare Trump the presumptive nominee, after voting in just 2 small states, without pesky voting by Republicans in the rest of the 48 states.
6 Arizona Republicans have introduced a bill to ignore the U.S. Constitution, and require the state to keep an insurrectionist on the ballot.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
The winning 2024 candidate could need a national popular vote win of 4 to 7 percentage points to squeak out an Electoral College victory, because of current state laws for winning electoral votes.
We need to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC always wins the Electoral College.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote numbers in presidential elections, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few counties in a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
Our unfair presidential election system can lead to politicians and their enablers who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness, and sometimes crimes and violence.
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.
The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.
Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
- States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law (not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution).
States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power, before voting begins, to again replace their state laws for how to award electors.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
NationalPopularVote.com
6 Arizona Republicans have introduced a bill to ignore the U.S. Constitution, and require the state to keep an insurrectionist on the ballot.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
The winning 2024 candidate could need a national popular vote win of 4 to 7 percentage points to squeak out an Electoral College victory, because of current state laws for winning electoral votes.
We need to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC always wins the Electoral College.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote numbers in presidential elections, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few counties in a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
Our unfair presidential election system can lead to politicians and their enablers who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness, and sometimes crimes and violence.
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.
The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.
Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
- States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law (not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution).
States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power, before voting begins, to again replace their state laws for how to award electors.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
NationalPopularVote.com
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not quite. The Senate still represents the interests of each state as a whole since they are elected by the state as a whole. The Representatives still focus on the needs of their district since they are elected by the district. That is except for six states where the populations is so low that the entire state is one district. In those states the representative also represent the views of the state as a whole.
The length of term also affects how the two Houses differ. Senators are only elected once ever six years. They are more apt to take a long view on problems. The House has every seat go up for election every two years. So they always have to be facing the "what have you done for me lately" crowd.